The American Dream:
Getting it wrong again
Watching the development process in Silver Spring for a decade, I'm amazed at how little the County has learned and how consistently it plays the role of lap dog for developers. As details of the "deal" emerge, it appears the only golden eggs this project lays go in the developer's pocket. The County is again tied to a deal without exploring options and asking critical questions, just as it did last time with Moore's Silver Triangle, a project that held Silver Spring hostage for almost a decade.
Did the County learn anything? Apparently not. For Moore, the County was prepared to buy and give away millions of dollars of land, create the worst traffic in the County, and abuse the sector plan process, all because of our "narrow window of opportunity". No planning, questions, or alternatives. Just give Moore everything, give it to him now, or Silver Spring dies. Sound familiar. It should because we're back to a view that says this project or nothing, no studying the alternatives, and we'll change the sector plan so the project fits. And then we'll give away even more money, plus most of the tax revenue.
I sat on the Citizen's Review Committee. We never saw the alternatives, but were told they weren't viable (off the record). I was personally (and smuggly) told by County staff, and members of the original committee, that the big advantage the Dream offered was that, aside from better retail experience, these guys had their own money, unlike the others who wanted the County to contribute even more money and/or land! Yet when the rivals were cleared away, the Dream developers said that they would need tons public money and tax abatements. Look at the deal, almost $60 million in land and improvements and $6 million (out of the hoped for $8 million) in taxes abated. And they haven't tapped the state coffers (another $50-100 million). If the tax projections were rosy when the County was selling the project, Duncan's proposed Dream Deal kills the rose. And this is more money than the rival proposals would have needed!
What should have been asked, and never was, is this: what size project is necessary to achieve revitalization while minimizing the impact on the community? Earlier County studies show retail revitalization can be achieved with a smaller (but not small) project. The Sector Plan's two scenarios, specialty retail and a traditional mall, ranged between 400-650,000 square feet. Both Moore's Silver Triangle, touted as Silver Spring's savior, and the Consensus Plan were less than a third the size of the Dream, on the scale of regional malls! Opponents of the Dream who supported the Consensus Plan are accused of clinging to quaint notions of "small is beautiful". The battle for small was lost long ago, what we are struggling for is sensible.
Dream proponents sell the project the way quacks sell snake oil. They talk of jobs created, but the project uses up the job ceiling and it precludes any redevelopment outside its walls. The alternative projects would create nearly as many jobs and the remaining jobs would certainly be gobbled up in the next ten years (we're talking less than a thousand jobs). .
Proponents tout the Mall as a recreational godsend, but when did Malls become rec centers? If the County has $100 million to throw away, why not just build a skating rink and aquatic center in Silver Spring. They'd have $80 million leftover to fix schools, roads, and provide small business assistance. Proponents say that this is the only way to get these services in "our area" and that's nuts. If public officials count Malls as providing adequate, appropriate youth services, then we need new officials. Nowhere else in this County would an elected official point to a mall and say, "There are you recreational facilities." For the cost of two trips by one person to the wave pool, a family could buy a month's membership in the YMCA. Suggesting that this Mall is the recreational moral equivalent of Blair is a joke. Why not skip building Blair and ask the developers to enlarge the "educational arcade" and we can make it the new high school?
And then there's the traffic. They claim this project, of more than 2 million square feet will generate less traffic than the old Silver Triangle proposal. How did they get those numbers? Simple. The Dream's traffic consultant was Moore's consultant and knew that in using County or national standards, this project wouldn't fit. They had had to change the rules for Moore's smaller project. So this time they got permission not use any existing standards and instead invented their own methodology. They used the least likely market scenario (which had the lowest auto usage) and artfully constructed a scheme only a developer could love.
The one use they found for the County's methodology was to reduce their traffic numbers by 20% for cars passing by the site, though this was inherent in their methodology, even applying it, absurdly, to tourist trips that make up almost half the shoppers. Does anyone believe thousands of tourists drive thru Silver Spring (Georgia or Colesville) in rush hour, in the peak direction?
You might ask, "Didn't the County sign off on this? They're not paid by the developer?" The County signed off on Moore's traffic projections, too, and they were thoroughy demolished. In public meetings this time, the County couldn't explain the developer's methodology. When asked why they discounted traffic for pass-bys, the consultant and the County staff people said that they didn't use the pass-by number, but when shown it, in both the consultants and the Park and Planning report, they found an explanation. The County, the developer and Dream proponents are so bent on selling this project, that they will tolerate no bad news and support the manufacturing of good news.
Are the alternatives anything to celebrate when it comes to traffic? Absolutely not. Because the County botched planning in Silver Spring, we're talking of 20 years of ineptitude, we don't have much choice. All projects will worsen a bad situation, the question is how much worse. We're being told that the only way to save Silver Spring is to build a project that generates traffic like Tysons Corner or Potomac Mills, and we're told that the roads can handle it. The roads don't handle what we have now.
We have choices but the County refuses to discuss or evaluate them. If it's prepared to give away the store, it should have made that clear to all the prospective developers. Put on the table what it's willing to contribute and ask Triple Five and the others to respond. Then take those responses, evaluate what they can deliver, the cost and the impact on the community, and pick the one proposal that causes the least harm while insuring that Silver Spring gets the revitalization it needs. The more I see of the Triple Five deal, the less I like it. Maybe if we didn't act like beggars, developers wouldn't keep taking us to the cleaners.
Back to the Issues